Welcome to the best KC Chiefs site on the internet. You can view any post as a visitor, but you are required to register before you can post. Click the register link above, it only takes 30 seconds to start chatting with Chiefs fans from all over the world! Enjoy your stay!

Alex Smith v. Tony Romo v. Geno Smith

I've been listening to a local radio show here in San Antonio. The host, Geoff Sheen, says that the extension that the Cowboys gave Romo was what his market value currently is. In other words, if Tony Romo had been a free agent this year, that contract is what other teams would have paid to sign Romo. So, I'd like to pose this question to the Kansas City Chiefs fan base:

If Tony Romo were a free agent this year, would you rather have Tony Romo at 6yr/$108m, Alex Smith for 2yr/$9m/600 draft pts, or Geno Smith for 5yr/$4m/3000 draft pts?

He was 4-3. 6 of the 7 he won with less than 200 yards passing. He won a game with 34 yards passing! He won two games where he threw 0 TDs! Sorry guys, you're wrong here.

Put Flacco on the Cowboys or Romo on the Ravens, we're not having this conversation of Flacco being the QB that Romo is. Romo made Laurent freaking Robinson a stud WR!

Not to mention that if Rahim Moore wasn't a complete idiot, we're not even having this conversation about Flacco.

Did you REALLY just try and state that Flacco is a lesser QB than Romo by using stats posted in his first SEVEN PLAYOFF GAMES as opposed to Romo's 1-3 record in the playoffs? I'm just trying to understand the logic, here... you want us to believe that Romo and his 1-3 playoff record is a better QB and worth more to his team and essentially worth more money than Super Bowl MVP Joe Flacco and his 9-4, 13-game playoff record?

OK...

Have you ever actually WATCHED the Cowboys play? I'm not saying Tony Romo is the problem in Dallas (that distinction belongs to Al Dav... err Jerry Jones) but he's definitely not part of the solution. The guy literally throws to wide open defenders sometimes seemingly on purpose. It's astounding this guy still has a job, let alone getting Tom Brady money. There's no effing way that guy gets that money on the open market. He'd probably be the first QB to be welcomed by a new team, but he's no Tom Brady... hell, he's not even a Joe Flacco.

I had this crazy dream last night that someone said they'd take Joe Flacco over Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, and Drew Brees. Oh wait, that wasn't a dream?

First things first...Flacco is a solid quarterback, but let's not overrate the guy. He had a solid 4-game stretch this year in which he played very well. Oh yeah, thanks again Rahim Moore.

On one hand, you argue that Flacco is awesome because he wins playoff games. On the other hand, you tell me why he wasn't needed in playoff game X, and still can's process the fact that Flacco's playoff "success" is tied to being on one of the best coached teams with a great defense? I mean, look at scoring defense numbers then.

If you're going to still try and tell me that Flacco is fully responsible for playoff wins behind a top 3 defense, you're delusional. The one year Romo had the #2 defense in the league, guess what? Hey, he won a playoff game too! Oh, but defense means nothing. Quarterbacks are responsible for playoff wins you guys! Mark Sanchez carried the Jets to an AFC Championship two years in a row, right? Hell, he's 4-2 in the playoffs! STUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, if you can't objectively look at QB play from more than wins/losses, and fail to take into account the team around a QB, I don't know what to tell you. Are you going to tell me next that Flacco plays better defense than Romo?

You don't just accidentally have a 95 QB rating after 7 years in the league. We're not looking at fantasy football stats here. This is 100% about how well a quarterback plays on the field looking past the team around him as a whole. And because Romo has played behind bottom half defenses for most of his career, he sucks? And if you think Romo should be out of the league? OUT OF THE LEAGUE? WTF? That's just nonsense, and almost crazier than saying you'd take Flacco over Manning. Chiefs fans especially, who should be used to terrible QB play, should see that Romo is a very good QB in this league.

I suppose you'll tell me that Romo is a human turnover machine. In his career he has 91 INTs and 22 fumbles lost in 121 games. That's 0.93 turnovers a game. Flacco has 56 INTs and 18 fumbles lost in 80 games. That's 0.93 turnovers a game.

Let's look at this from a completely illogical perspective then. Romo is statistically > Flacco on just about every level on a much, much consistently worse defensive team so therefore Romo sucks and Flacco is awesome. Herp derp.

Flacco has played behind a top-12 defense every year in the league (top 3 for 4/5 years), but let's give him all of the credit. It goes back to the old saying I guess...Defense wins championships...Unless you're Joe Flacco! Seriously folks, stop overrating Flacco while failing to realize that Romo has been very good as a QB in this league behind terrible defense.

Trust me, I have always been a Flacco supporter. If he continues at this pace we'll all talk about him with the greats. But let's not get it twisted in regards to how good he really is, given that he's always played behind outstanding defense and under one of the league's best coaches.

Nobody said that Flacco carried them in ALL their playoff wins. What we said was your preference of Romo over Flacco was totally short-sighted. The fact is, if Flacco is NOT in the Ravens lineup, it's highly doubtful the Ravens would have posted a 9-4 record.

There's no way you can justify the statement that Romo is better than Flacco. Flacco is younger than Romo for one thing & go look at the Ravens record from 2001 through 2007 prior to Flacco's arrival.

I swear, people are just arguing for the sake of arguing now. Go look at the Cowboys records prior to 2006!

Cowboys in 5 years prior to Romo's arrival: 35-45
Ravens in 5 years prior to Flacco's arrival: 43-37

I mean seriously, every argument made in favor of Flacco applies to Romo, except for the fact that Romo pretty much always plays behind craptacular defenses while Flacco has consistently played behind one of the best defenses in the league.

Romo's name has this negative connotation associated with it. Let's try it this way. You can choose between player A and player B to put on your team behind an top 5 defense. Both players turn the ball over at an identical rate.

Player A: 60.5 comp %, 7.1 yards/attempt, 102/56 TD:INT (1.81 TDs for every INT), 86.3 career QB rating, has never thrown for over 3900 yards in a season (averages 220.4 yards/gm), sacked on 6.5% of his dropbacks

Player B: 64.7 comp%, 7.9 yards/attempt, 177/91 TD:INT (1.94 TDs for every INT), 95.6 career QB rating (one of only 5 QBs all time w/ > 95 career QB rating), has thrown for over 4100 yards 4 times in 7 years (other 3 years had less than 14 games started, averages 276 yards/start), sacked on 5.2% of his dropbacks

Seriously, everything else equal, you're going to call me absolutely crazy for wanting player B? And Player B is lucky to be in the league? You'd take Player A 100% of the time and it would be insane for player B to sniff the same amount of money as player A? Seriously, raise your hands people if I'm completely effing crazy for even considering player B on my team, and tell me exactly why I'm crazy.

You're right I can't prove how well Romo would do behind a top defense on a regular basis. But I can damn sure say I'd take Romo over Flacco based on every argument presented in this thread, and I wouldn't think twice about it.